Wednesday, August 26, 2015

Patricia S. Spratt appointed to 7th Subcircuit vacancy

The Illinois Supreme Court yesterday named Patricia S. Spratt to fill the 7th Subcircuit vacancy created by the recent retirement of Judge Anita Rivkin-Carothers. The appointment is effective September 8 and terminates on December 5, 2016.

Spratt is a currently partner in the Chicago office of Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP; she has been licensed as an attorney in Illinois since 1991. She was a candidate for the countywide Neville vacancy in 2014, winning endorsements from the Tribune and Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky along the way.

8 comments:

Again with the different set of rules...different standars for Hispanic vacancies versus all others, Black, White, Greek or Jewish!

Look at the posting regarding the July 1, 2015 announcement by the Supreme Court about the 6th sub-circuit vacancy and the endless hoops candidates need to jump through just to be considered for appointment to the vacancy crated by the retirement of Judge Leida Gonzalez-Santiago.

Can someone please tell me what hoops Ms. Spratt jumped to get appointed to the vacancy created by Judge Anita Rivkin-Carothers' vacancy?

Oh yeah, nevermind. Just another example of the pathetic "family and friends plan" double-standard that the Supreme Court is so famous for. Okay for everybody to just get tapped on the shoulder and be made a judge except for Hispanics. As in the old "Jim Crow" days, it looks like the 6th sub-circuit has a poll tax.

E.P., I hope you know how grateful I am for your comments -- I think your comments may be bringing new readers to the blog.

But... you've raised this double-standard, 'friends and family' thing before, but at least some of your concerns have an innocent explanation.

To wit: There are three Supreme Court justices elected from Cook County (each of the state's other four appellate districts gets one each, for the total of seven). Under the Illinois Constitution, the Supreme Court gets to fill judicial vacancies when they occur. So when vacancies occur in Cook County, the three justices could all make joint appointments -- all in agreement -- but, traditionally, that's not how it has worked. The Supreme Court always appoints, but, in Cook County, the individual justices take turns recommending the appointee, who is (so far as anyone knows) always appointed.

This used to be a not-so-well-kept secret. You might figure out which justice appointed which new judge if the Law Bulletin ran a picture of the installation -- understandably, the appointing justice would typically play a prominent role in the installation ceremony.

But fashions change. Downstate, where judicial districts cover literally dozens of counties, justices began appointing committees to assist in screening judicial wannabes. The practice has spread to Cook County. This is not statutory; it is not required. So the three justices from Cook County can and do take different approaches to screening committees. Justice Freeman has not disclosed any particular committee, or even (so far as I know) if he has one. Justice Burke has a committee, chaired by retired Supreme Court Justice Benjamin K. Miller, but her committee keeps a very low profile. Justice Theis has made it a point to publicize the establishment of her screening committee and to make a point of making appointments 'within her gift' (as the old expression goes) through that committee, co-chaired by retired Appellate Court Justice Michael J. Gallagher and retired District Court Judge Wayne Anderson.

The 6th Subcircuit vacancy of Judge Leida Gonzalez-Santiago will be filled on the recommendation of Justice Theis -- and at least some of the "endless hoops" to which you refer are the result of the process instituted for the Theis committee.

Now, E.P., I don't relate this because of my Panglossian view of the world or because I am an "insider." (I am far, far, far from being an insider -- as I have proved recently beyond argument). But I am a long-time, interested observer.

You are observing from a different viewpoint, E.P., and I do not presume to contest the validity of your observations, but I add my own to yours for the sake of providing perspective for blog readers.

And now for the reasoning behind my earlier comment. Ms. Pratt's husband is a federal judge. So I think her appointment by the Supreme Court to that vacancy in the 7th sub-circuit qualifies under the friends and family plan. But hey, that's just my opinion.

E.P. -- The 2013 wedding of 7th Circuit Judge William J. Bauer and newly-appointed Judge Spratt is a matter of public record and was reported at the time. However, the identity of Ms. Spratt's spouse has nothing to do with her own qualifications to serve as a Circuit Court Judge. Granted, it presumably didn't hurt her chances of getting appointed -- but why should her marriage be held against her? In every election cycle that I've observed in any detail, we've had a number of candidates who are spouses, offspring, nephews, nieces or in-laws of present or former judges (your "friends and family plan"). These martial or familial relationships should not be of themselves any sort of qualification for judicial office -- I think we completely agree on this -- but why should any given individual who is otherwise qualified be denied the chance to serve because he or she is related by blood or marriage to someone who is already serving?

I admit to occasional pangs of envy because I have no such connections... but, as the cheery old saying goes, "Life is hard, and then you die."

About Me

I am an experienced attorney (concentrating in insurance coverage, insurance litigation and civil appeals). I am certified as a Mediator in the Cook County Law Division Major Case Court-Annexed Civil Mediation Program and the Chancery Division Mediation Program.

Advertising policy

If you're looking to provide a product or service to Cook County judicial candidates or potential candidates, please take note: I will consider accepting advertisements for products and services aimed at judicial candidates.

Advertisements -- clearly labeled as such -- will be put up as posts on the blog for a one-time fee. I reserve the right to edit or reject ad copy or to refuse an ad altogether. Email me at jackleyhane@yahoo.com for information and rates.

Judicial candidates and campaigns are not charged for getting their information on this blog. This blog does not make endorsements and no ads for or against any particular candidate will be accepted (the content of Google ads appearing on this page are not under my direct control).

Follow me on Twitter

Please note: Sending an email to this blog or leaving a comment to a post does not create, nor should it be construed by you as creating, an attorney-client relationship. Unless a prior request is made, I reserve the right to publish, in whole or part, any e-mails sent to this blog. Please see additional disclaimer at the bottom of this page.

My Links

Subscribe To This Blog

Follow by Email

Disclaimer: Please Take Careful Note

Nothing in this blog is meant to create, nor should it be construed by you as creating, an attorney-client relationship. Sending an email to this blog or leaving a comment to a post does not create, nor should it be construed by you as creating, an attorney-client relationship.
The opinions expressed in articles posted to this blog are the author's own and do not constitute legal advice on which you can or should rely.
The author of this blog is licensed only in the State of Illinois. If you have a legal problem or issue, you should consult a lawyer in the jurisdiction where you live and/or where the problem or issue arose.
If you just keep these simple groundrules in mind, all of us -- you, me, and my legal malpractice insurer -- will be much happier. Thank you.